Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.
The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida's relationship with America's ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn't get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. "I don't think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn't get the institutional support they needed," says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20120626073402372

The 1998 Raw Intelligence Report on UBL's Plans to Hijack an Airplane that Became an Item in the December 4, 1998 President's Daily Brief [1998-12-03].

The report details how bin Laden was planning "new operations against the United States (U.S.) targets in the near future. Plans to hijack a U.S. aircraft were proceeding well. Two individuals from the relevant operational team in the U.S. had successfully evaded security checks during a trial run at "New York airport [excised]."...

This is a really informative radio interview on the subject. Put it on in the background and listen.

The Debunkers should recognise the consequences of a system fixated with covering up highly damaging (to the status quo) information. Sometimes it is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT to come clean with the truth. At present, when various actions could be taken to lessen the impact of this disaster, we find nothing substantive is happening. Efforts to entomb the reactor site, even now, must be made.

The stakes are pretty straightforward too. Do nothing, and face higher and higher levels of contamination, and eventual early death for yourself and family, or act and take measures to prevent long term damage to our species. Debunkers, experts at assessing information and creating disinformation, are smart enough to know what the deal is.

Why should I promise to fight? Because the 1% wreck our economy, kill our jobs, seize our homes, assault our rights, destroy the environment, and sentence us to lives of debt and war. For years, we have petitioned our governments for change without redress and have fought tirelessly to elect politicians who only betray us. In a world where the 1% have usurped democracy and politicians refuse to serve the people, the people have but one choice—to fight back!

How can I fight? Occupiers use direct action to create change, because it works better than voting and is way more fun. Read the pledge to learn how to use some of these tactics.

“Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.” – Howard Zinn

Jeff King, an early scientific voice in the 9/11 Truth Movement, died on June 19 after a lengthy battle with amyloidosis and multple myeloma. He studied physics and engineering at MIT, left for a number of years, then re-enrolled, finished with a degree in Biology (with a combined course of study later labeled Biomedical Engineering), then went on to medical school and became a physician.

Jeff was a neighbor and a good friend. You may know of him through his online name, Plague Puppy (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/). Some of his thinking about 9/11 was speculative and out of the mainstream of the 9/11 Truth Movement, but I knew him to be extremely inquisitive, well read, independent in his thinking, and non-dogmatic. He was one of the early influences in my getting involved with the 9/11 Truth Movement. He was a gentle and caring person, beloved by his patients...

Jeff King gives his thorough analysis of the WTC collapses on 9/11 in 2003 and concludes that explosive controlled demolition is the only scientifically explainable hypothesis. This is research from early on, and doesn't account for many of the later discoveries, however, it's still a very important video.

Smashing Pumpkins frontman Billy Corgan talks with Alex in an explosive taped interview. Corgan and Jones cover a variety of issues, from the police state to GMO and more.

Alex also talks with actor, author, former professional wrestler and the former governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura. Alex and Ventura talk about TSA whistleblowers, the disintegration of republic and his new book, DemoCRIPS and ReBLOODlicans, now available at the Infowars store.

Thank you so much, Governor Culver for forwarding this petition. I'm surprised it took so long for many to notice. The evidence is overwhelming and truth usually wins eventually . . . in justice anyway. Critical flows that hold the web for all life intact balance for justice and justice balances. I hope Tom Miller is working on this. Thanks again!

We need a real investigation into the many, many inconsistencies about 9/11.

Chester John "Chet" Culver (born January 25, 1966) is the Governor of Iowa.

Culver was born in Washington, D.C.. His father, John Culver, was a United States Senator. Before entering politics, Culver was a teacher.

In 1998, Culver won election to be the Iowa Secretary of State. He was reelected in 2002. After Governor Tom Vilsack said he would not run for Governor in 2006, Culver became a Democratic candidate for Governor. In November of 2006, he defeated his Republican opponent, Jim Nussle, and in January he became Governor of Iowa.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

I think it's time to get off your duff and let people know that you've
begun to worry that your eight YouTube videos and your "over fifty
articles" might be wrong. James and I make an effort to correct the occasional posts where we make a mistake (although with thousands of posts I am sure we have failed to correct something somewhere).

This is rich coming from ScrewLooseChange. How about you guys get off your duff and actually acknowledge the existence of the many articles on this blog that expose your BS?

Much has been speculated and written since my endorsement of Mitt Romney for president. Many in the liberty movement and my longtime supporters wondered if, as a result of endorsing someone for office, I would stand up to them when they went astray. The question to me is as strange as the answer is simple: Yes, strongly. Every time I have always done what I believe and I have never been blinded by party. In my time in the United States Senate, I have opposed the USA Patriot Act, voted against the NDAA ... I endorsed Governor Romney for many reasons, not the least of which is that we simply cannot afford four more years of President Obama. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, an out-of-control EPA and NLRB, and trillion-dollar deficits are combining to strangle our economy ... I do not yet know if I will find a Romney presidency more acceptable on foreign policy

And if you believe Romney is going to be better on any of these things, you're a moron. Rand mentions Obamacare, which Romney practically wrote. He mentions the NDAA, which Romney supports. And he talks about Romney's foreign policy as if there is any doubt that he is a war mongerer. There isn't. He is going to be a war mongerer, no doubt about it! This article is pure damage control. Rand is playing the false left-right game. "We simply cannot afford four more years of President Obama", he says. Because anyone who's not Obama has got to be better! Right?! Yeah, that's what everyone was saying about Bush in 2008.

I guess it's true what they say. You don't change politics, politics changes you. I mean, what the hell? What'd they do, show him never-before-seen footage of the Kennedy assassination? What is it with all these good politicians suddenly selling out? Reminds me of when Dennis Kucinich reversed his position on Obama's health care plan after a ride in Air Force One two years ago. What went on during that flight is anyone's guess.

"All hail the brain slugs!"

3. Tony Blair is still ... Tony Blair

I don't know what it is, but something about Tony Blair just enrages and
sickens me to my very core. Arrest that lying, murdering piece of
canine excrement for f**k sake! All those people in the audience ... Seriously, WTF?! Why would anyone want to go hear this guy speak?!

Manny
Badillo, Leslie Young, Tony Szamboti and Bob McIlvaine joined other
family members and technical professionals in the latest ad from the Remember Building 7 Campaign

Geraldo
Rivera, Bob McIlvaine, and Tony Szamboti make November a month to
remember. Geraldo publicly questions the destruction of WTC 7, citing
the credibility of "those 1,300 architects and engineers".

Families, First Responders, Survivors Speak Out

We, the undersigned Families, First Responders and Survivors of
September 11 raise our voice with those from across our country and
around the world in support of NYC CAN and the establishment of an
independent, impartial subpoena powered investigation into the events
surrounding the September 11 attacks on our nation.

We believe a new investigation is our only path forward to the
answers and accountability every American deserves and our only path
back to the moral high ground upon which our great nation was built.
We unite with NYC CAN and the citizens of the City of New York in
support of an unbiased nonpolitical rendering of evidence and fact
wherever they may lead and ask every American and every concerned
citizen of the world, in defense of our nation and in defense of
freedom, to join with us today.

The BBC is set to air a new 'Conspiracy Road Trip' hit piece on the 7/7 London bombings. As we saw with last summer's 9/11 version, the program tries to get "truthers" to recant and swallow the official story - in the process ideologically burning them at the stake for the consumption of the viewing sheeple.

I talk to Jon Scobie of We Are Change Birmingham who took part in the filming as one of the central participants. He astoundingly reveals that producers admitted to him from the start that the show would not be unbiased, and that no less than five executive-level directors make the decisions on editing before the programme even airs.

Great interview. Worth checking!

*And check out the related info that explains the ACTUAL train arrival and departure times on 7/7 juxtaposed to the official story. It seems that it was impossible for the bombers, arriving at Luton station at 7:21:54, in the rush hour, to have caught all the necessary departing trains, except for one, so that the full bombing scenario could play out.

Former Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura called for the abolition of the Democratic and Republican parities in an appearance last night on CNN, saying they are worse than violent warring street gangs.

In an interview with Piers Morgan, Ventura did not hold back, urging that "We need to abolish the political parties," and "Make them political action committees."

As he does in his new book, the former Navy Seal compared the current two party US political system to the infamous Los Angeles street gangs the Bloods and Crips.

"They call the blue states Democrats, well that is also the colors of the Crips," he explained. "Naturally, the Bloods' color is red and the Republican states are called red states."

"They're worse," Ventura continued. "Let me explain why they're worse: The Crips and the Bloods, the street gangs, while they can be devastating to a certain small part of the population, the Democrips and the Rep-bloodicans, they affect everybody in this country."

Ventura elaborated by explaining that the system has been corrupted by big money and both parties are bought and paid for, leaving no room for a third party to have any success.

Ventura suggested that presidential candidates should be "required to wear a NASCAR racing suit" to "show who owns them".

I think it's safe to say that if Tupac Shakur was still with us he would be a fan of Ventura's new book.

Tupac Shakur breaks down the truth about the perpetual culture of Gangs and how our Country founded the mentality. A never before seen clip from inside his prison walls while incarcerated, Tupac had the chance to convey how he feels that our Government has made us the way we are today!

Apparently I'm being gagged, according to the anti-9/11 truth tabloid masquerading as a skeptical website, ScrewLooseChange. Last month, I accidentally prematurely published a draft post I was working on (still not used to this new blogger), and even though it was only up for like a minute, someone was able to take a screen grab and share it with the JREF community. In the leaked draft post I express my concerns about AE911Truth promoting the red/gray chips as a key piece of evidence in their film. My silence since that post was leaked has led Pat Curley and many SLC commenters to suspect that I am being gagged by John-Michael and Adam. I love it when debunkers engage in conspiracy theorizing!

First of all, JM at least (not sure about Adam) actually shares my concerns. He is currently in the process of writing a post about the red-gray chips that addresses Millette's report and outlines an upcoming, blind study of the WTC dust commissioned by Mark Basile.

Second, the reason I never finished the "Red chips or Blue Pills" post and haven't responded to the leak until now is simple: procrastination. I've been suffering from blogger burnout recently and keep starting posts and never finishing them. On my other blog, Skeptic Denialism, I haven't published anything since December and have unfinished posts going back to last August! I was also going to write about Basile's study in my Blue Pills post and wanted to wait until it was officially going ahead before I finished it.

Last month, I spent two weeks writing a lengthy response to Adam Savage's comments at the Reason Rally in March, in which I outlined various 9/11 "myths" the MythBusters could easily test (from both truthers and debunkers) and basically told Savage to do a 9/11 episode or shut up. When I finally finished, I hit publish and for some reason only the first two paragraphs were published while the rest of the post was memory holed into oblivion and I ended up losing all my work. Since then I've been even more fed up with blogging.

You gotta love debunkers. When Sibel Edmonds gets officially, federally gagged, it's no big deal. When I don't blog for a month, it's a conspiracy!

So where do I stand now on the nanothermite issue? The last three years, I've emphasized the red-gray chips as a key piece of evidence in most of my YouTube videos[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] - even my song[8] - and have uploaded both videos of chip ignitions to my channel[9][10] and devoted entire videos to debunking paint claims[11][12]. On this blog, Adam, JM and myself have written over fifty articles
defending the work of Harrit et al against debunker criticisms. We've
all invested a lot of time into promoting and defending this work, and I
doubt you'll find more passionate endorsers of it than us. But since reading Millette's report and some of Oystein's JREF posts, doubts have formed in my mind. I haven't switched sides just yet, but I am
more neutral. I think Oystein makes an interesting point about the
similarity in composition to LaClede primer...

And I can see what people are saying when they say the Al/Si/O plate-like particles look more like Kaolin than nanoaluminum...

But I still think the chemical behaviour is key. Even super JREFers Oystein and Ivan Kminek
have admitted that they don't know why primer paint would produce
iron-rich spheres when burned.

My main frustration is lack of data. I keep hearing how Harrit, Farrer et al have a lot more data than what was published in the Active Thermitic Material... paper, including TEM images, FTIR plots and XEDS spectra of chips (a)-(d) prior to washing, data that allegedly undermines certain debunker criticisms (such as Oystein's contamination denial). Great, let's see it! I've also been told that early drafts of the Active Thermitic Material... paper were several times longer with such data included but the authors were told by peer-reviewers to cut the length down. I just wonder why they didn't make all the data they had to take out available on the Journal of 9/11 Studies website as supplementary material or something.

For me, it all comes down to Basile's study. Whichever side is 2-1 up after that is the one I'll side with. JM says the same. If we feel the conclusions of Harrit et al have been refuted, we'll say so. We'll write a blog post announcing that we've changed our views and we'll put a disclaimer on every blog we've ever written about the red/gray chips linking readers to that announcement, and I'll put annotations on all my YouTube videos saying the work of Harrit et al has been debunked. We may have invested a lot of time into defending it, but don't worry, unlike debunkers, we don't let emotional investments and cognitive dissonance cloud our rational judgement!

Again, my big concern is what a refutation of Harrit et al will mean for
AE911Truth and their movie. No amount of thermite debunking
will convince me that the collapse explanations offered by NIST and
Bazant are in any way consistent with the laws of physics, so I'll
defend the 1700 individual A&Es to the death, but the
organization itself is pissing me off a little. If the chips do turn out to be LaClede primer, then this could be used to completely
discredit "Experts Speak Out", AE911Truth and 9/11 Truth as a whole.

Comment from John-Michael:

I agree with you that ae911 should have waited to see how things panned out with Millette before releasing their film, but the claim by Pat that Experts Speak Out "relies heavily on the nanothermite claim" is an overstatement. In the final edition, the thermite related evidence section takes up approximately 18 minutes of a roughly 96 minute film. The majority of time is devoted to the undebunkable physical evidence I cited in my Millette article, which will soon to be updated with a short reply to Oystein. Couple this with the fact that the 9/11 truth movement survived the early versions of Loose Change and I think things will be just fine no matter what.

Also, Pat says he has "been rather critical of the folks over at the rebunking 9-11 blog." In reality, he has mostly avoided our rather substantial criticism of him as well as our rebuttals to the small amount of criticism he has levied at us (example).

Popular Mechanic's revised edition of their book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" will
surely impress those who already believe the 9/11 Truth Movement has no
credibility. It will likely serve as reassurance that the so called "conspiracy
theories" about the September 11th attacks have officially been put to rest.
However, for those of us who have actually taken the time to analyze the claims
made by both truthers and debunkers alike, one finds that PM not only gets the
facts wrong, but also engages in deliberate misrepresentations of the Truth
Movement's arguments. Granted, I do believe that a plane hit the Pentagon and
that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. So as far as that's concerned, PM is more
or less right. However, their discussion of the WTC controlled demolition theory
is one of the most disgustingly flawed things I've ever read.

Even after
5 years of addressing PM's many flawed arguments, they still continue to rehash
many of the same claims that have long been debunked by members of the Truth
Movement. For example, they continue parrot NIST's claim that the molten flow
seen coming from the 81st floor of the South Tower was molten aluminum, a claim
that has long been refuted. (Google: Experiments to test NIST "orange glow" hypothesis... ) Also, PM's assessment of the Truth Movement is disgustingly
misrepresentative, and even downright deceptive. For on pages 28-29 of their
2011 book, they actually claim that "not one of the leading conspiracy theorists
has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields." Of course!
Never mind that fact that there are currently over 1600 architects, engineers,
and other building professionals who believe that the Twin Towers and Building 7
were destroyed with explosives. See: ae911truth.org In fact, in all of PM's
216 page book, there is not a single mention of the group Architects and
Engineers for 9/11 Truth, or its founder architect Richard Gage. (Google: The 9/11 Truth Movement has no credentialed experts... ) Despite the fact that PM
claims to be taking on the Truth Movement and its arguments, PM somehow missed
the largest group of credentialed experts who agrees with the Movement. Either
this is extremely bad journalism on PM's part, or simply shear
deception.

And PM is fond of doing this on a smaller scale in their new
book as well. While attempting to debunk truther claims of "free fall" for the
Twin Towers, they mention a scientific paper by Dr. Keith Seffen supporting the
"plane impact/fire" theory, and then quotes one random truther claiming that
Seffen is "an accessory after the fact in the crime of mass-murder." However,
when reading this part of PM's book, you might notice that they don't provide a
direct source for this particular quote. They provide us with this person's
personal website, yet nowhere is this quote found on said site. When one takes
the time to track down PM's source, you'll find that the quote comes from a
random blogspot site discussing Keith Seffen's paper. This truther's quote was
merely a comment posted on the blog. (Google: 9-11 Anniversary Propaganda Special! WTC Demolition theory challenged by Cambridge University engineer ) In
their attempt to portray truthers as irrational individuals, PM actually goes so
low as to pull a random quote off a blogspot site that many in the Movement
probably have never heard of. Were there any other members of the Movement PM
could have quoted in regards to Keith Seffen's paper? Apparently not, unless you
count Dr. Crockett Grabbe's detailed refutation of Seffen's paper (Google:
sealane response to Seffen )

By far PM's saddest attempt at "debunking"
the Truth Movement is their section on the nanothermite discovered in the WTC
dust. Rather than actually trying to "debunk" this evidence, PM simply attempts
to discredit the findings of the scientists who made this discovery by trying to
cast doubt on the peer review of the study. This of course is nothing more than
a dodge on PM's part. Rather than engage in an actual scientific debate, PM
apparently prefers to smear their opponents with lies.

The structure of
the book matches the poor quality of the information provided. In virtually
every case where PM quotes a member of the Movement, they provide no direct
source for where the quote came from. At most, PM will provide the reader with a
website URL that the quote might have come from, but they apparently feel no
need to provide the reader with a direct link to where the quote came from on
that site. They provide no endnotes that take the reader to direct sources
either. Basically, because their information is sourced so poorly, it's
impossible to know whether they've got something right or not without going back
and essentially redoing all their work. This basically makes their book useless,
for why even bother reading the book when you're just going to end up redoing
all their work anyway?

PM's book is by far one of the poorest attempts at
discrediting the extensive research done by the members of the 9/11 Truth
Movement. If you're a debunker or any other type of defender of the official
story, this book will no doubt tickle your funny bone as you continue to mock
and laugh at the "twoofers." However, if you actually take the time to review
PM's information and their methods, you will find that these are not laughing
matters, and that a new investigation into the events of 9/11 is desperately
still needed.

I am a concerned citizen who wants the real truth about 9/11 exposed. I find science fascinating. I also enjoy researching the history of the origins of religion.
Bio: http://www.scientificmethod911.org/authors/taylor_author.html
Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/3zynhh3

I am a concerned citizen who wants the real truth about 9/11 exposed. I find science fascinating. I also enjoy researching the history of the origins of religion.
Bio: http://www.scientificmethod911.org/authors/taylor_author.html
Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/3zynhh3

The consequences of pushing cover-ups on the population will also impact upon those doing the debunking. In the end we might all be bathing in a sea of radiation if we do not treat such issues seriously. To those doing the "debunking" - please, cut it out.

And if you think that you are performing an important National Security job or "helping the planet" in some way then I say you should reconsider. There is more than one way to "help" our planet - covering-up nuclear disasters is not the way. Plus some jobs make you an expendable pawn for misguided, power centric individuals.

Dear Debunkers, we need your help to blow the lid off our mainstream cover-up system before we all end up in a pickle jar. There is more than one path towards the future.

Sunday, June 10, 2012

Colorado 911 Visibility brought Richard Gage to town to premier the final release of 9/11: Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out Final Edition. Special to this premier and likely none of the other places it will premier was the panel of psychologists from the movie live to answer questions. This video contains more than an hour and a half of a never before seen question and answer session with Richard himself and the panel where topics from nanothermite to Judy Wood to Ace Elevator Company to Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! are all covered. We R Change was in the hizouse and Michael Storm got Richard to let him film it. Enjoy!

Related:

"A variety of media sources, including Popular Mechanics, BBC and the History Channel, have dismissed the assertions of AE911Truth and presented their own arguments in favor of the theory that jet fuel and office fires were the primary factor in the WTC skyscrapers' collapse." - Source

And what about other physical evidence that debunks the interception theory, specifically the NORAD tapes,
which document the chaos and confusion of American air defenses that
morning in painstaking detail? Griffin's response is that the tapes have
likely been doctored using morphing technology
to fake the voices of the government officials and depict phony chaos
according to a government-written script. It's not surprising, he says,
that after 9/11, mainstream historical accounts would be revised to fit
the official narrative.

"This is a self-confirming hypothesis for the people who hold it,"
Meigs says. "In that sense it is immune from any kind of refutation and
it is very similar to, if you've ever known a really hardcore,
doctrinaire Marxist or a hardcore fundamentalist creationist. They have
sort of a divine answer to every argument you might make."

The fourth and final story from NORAD was the official account given by the 9/11 Commission Report,
now supported by NORAD. In this explanation NORAD received “no advance
notice” on any of the last three hijacked airliners.[11] Instead of 20
minutes of notice on Flight 175, and 14 minutes notice on Flight 77,
and 47 minutes notice on Flight 93, we were told that NORAD was not
notified about any of them until it was too late. The military was off
the hook entirely.

All the evidence for notifications and response, which had
constituted the official account for nearly three years, had been thrown
out the window. In place of these documents and testimonies, new
explanations were given for why the scrambled aircraft never reached the
hijacked airliners. These included unbelievable claims of communication
failures and misdirection of the scrambled jets, as well as the
introduction of a never-before mentioned “Phantom 11” scenario.[12]

The 9/11 Commission Report account was supported two years later by an article in Vanity Fair.
[13] Allegedly, the author of the article was given privileged access
to audio tapes that were not available to the public. Although the
newly revealed “NORAD tapes” ostensibly bolstered the Commission’s new
timeline, credible explanations were never given for throwing out the
years of testimony and evidence that supported entirely different
timelines.

The activistnyc.wordpress.com
blog responds to the "debunkers" and demonstrates why Griffin believes
what he believes, but also why his view of how the tapes were manipulated
isn't necessary to conclude the tapes are not the end of the story.

A page on antiwar.com claims that Michael Bronner’s Vanity Fair
article has “debunked” two “conspiracy theories,” including “(2) That
the air force was ordered to ‘stand down’ on 9/11.” What????
Admittedly, since none of the hijacked planes were ever intercepted, one
could dismiss the no-shoot order as irrelevant. But there was indeed
such an order. The mere existence of such an order was anything but
“debunked” by Bronner’s article. To “debunk” that, one would have to claim that tapes were voice-morphed – with no conceivable motive.

Despite the lies of Cheney in his subsequent TV
interviews and statements given under oath to the 9/11 Commission, those
shoot down orders never arrived, even after United 93 had crashed in
Pennsylvania.

A reasonable summary.

Another Prison Planet article, NORAD Tapes Expose Lax Military Attitude On 9/11 Air Defense
by Paul Joseph Watson, August 4 2006, deals with the lackadaisical
attitude of the Navy air traffic controller who was in charge of the two
planes from Langley Air Force Base. Watson says, “NORAD tapes released
this week which shed light on the negligence of the U.S. military in
providing adequate air defense on 9/11 contain a conversation with a
Navy air traffic control operator that provides another smoking gun for
the assertion of a deliberate stand down policy on the morning of the
attacks.” Of course, the Navy ATC himself probably just didn’t know
what was going on. But why didn’t he know? Why wouldn’t he have been told?

Griffin’s main point is that the tapes themselves are suspect. For one thing, the tapes contradict many previous accounts, by many different officials, including people in both the FAA and the military.

Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission’s tapes-based account differs from
all previous accounts in an amazingly consistent way, consistently
placing 100% of the blame upon the FAA, whereas all previous accounts
consistently do not place 100% of the blame upon the FAA.
According to the 9/11 Commission’s tapes-based account, the military
was not informed at all about any of Flights 175, Flight 77, or Flight
93 until after they had crashed. On the other hand, in all previous
accounts, from the military as well as from the FAA, the military was
notified about at least Flights 175 and Flight 77 (and, in many
accounts, Flight 93 too) before they crashed. In all previous accounts,
the military also tried to do something about each flight they heard
about before it crashed. Also, according to the 9/11 Commission’s
tapes-based account, the fighters from Langley were scrambled not
in response to any real hijacked plane, but only in response to
“phantom Flight 11,” a false FAA rumor that WTC 1 had been struck by
something other than Flight 11, and that Flight 11 was still in the air
and on its way to Washington, D.C. According to Griffin, “phantom
Flight 11″ had never been mentioned in any previous reports.

So, if the tapes are genuine and all previous reports are false, then
it is understandable why the FAA would have lied earlier, to cover its
own ass. But, Griffin argues, why would military officials lie to cover
the FAA’s ass, at the expense of opening themselves up to
charges of incompetence or worse? (It is also very unlikely that
military officials could have honestly forgotten that they were informed
too late to do anything about any of the hijacked planes.)

Furthermore, Griffin finds it incredible that the FAA could actually
be as incompetent as the tapes portray. I’m not as incredulous as
Griffin is about the possibility of false alarms, such as “phantom
Flight 11,” on such a panic-inducing day as 9/11. But it does seem very
unlikely to me that anyone in the FAA would have been so extremely lax
about reporting any abnormal behavior by either Flight 77 or Flight 93
after both WTC towers had been hit, at which point it was clear that
there was a coordinated attack. It also seems very unlikely to me that
anyone in either the Boston FAA Center or the New York FAA Center would
have been lax about communicating with the military about Flight 175,
after Flight 11 crashed into WTC 1.

Griffin then suggests that the tapes could have been fabricated via
voice-morphing. This is possible, but I think it more likely that some
of the timestamps may have been massaged a bit. Doctoring the
timestamps would have been simpler to accomplish than a convincing
voice-morph.

Griffin also endorses the idea that phone calls from the passengers
on Flight 93 may have been voice-morphed. That’s an idea I personally
find very hard to believe. As far as I am aware, no families or
co-workers of the passengers have ever expressed any doubts about the
authenticity of those calls. And a convincing voice-morph would have
required lengthy voice samples plus familiarity with the person’s
idiosyncrasies. That being the case, it seems to me more likely that
the “cell phone” calls were in fact Airfone calls, and that the cell
phone vs. Airfone issue was merely an error in early reports.

Back to the NORAD tapes. It should be noted that the tapes do not
include absolutely everything that happened. They do not include
conversations amongst the high-level officials, for example. Only on
some phone lines were conversations recorded. In addition, perhaps
there might have been some cherry-picking of the conversations that were
recorded.

Griffin writes, regarding his belief that the NORAD tapes were fabricated:

But Would All Those People Participate in a Lie?

There is, to be sure, a rather obvious objection to this hypothesis:
If the NORAD and FAA tapes as described by Bronner have both been
altered, then many military and FAA personnel would know this. Surely at
least some of them would speak up? Surely not everyone would be willing
to be complicit in such an enormous fraud by remaining silent!

However–and this could turn out to be the most important implication
of the new story–it is now known that members of both the FAA and the
military are capable of such deceit and complicity. On the one hand, if
the new story is true, then many people in both the FAA and the military
knew the old story to be false and yet supported it–whether actively or
by their silence–from 2001 to 2004. On the other hand, if the new story
is false, then many people in both the FAA and the military know this
and yet have supported it–whether verbally or merely by not challenging
it–since the publication of The 9/11 Commission Report in July 2004.
Given Bronner’s portrayal of some of the people at NEADS, to be sure, it
is not pleasant to think of them as consciously participating in an
enormous lie. But we have no choice, because if the new story is true,
then they were complicit in an enormous lie between 2001 and 2004. And
if so, we have no reason to believe they would not participate in a new,
improved lie.

I would add that, if voice-morphing were not done but
only the timestamps were altered, then a lot of people might not even
notice the changes, or might honestly just assume that both their own
and everyone else’s memories were wrong.

In David Ray Griffin's book The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposed, he writes:

And for what's it's worth there is an individual online who claims there exists proof of the tapes being manipulated, who wrote:

My name is david .
and i would like to pass information about what happen on 911, 2 days
before (sept 9th and 10th) but i would rather post a mp3 which will
cover alot of info. my lawyer told me i should wait until there a new
investigation, and its very dangerous for me to post, blog, or even tell
anyone what happen. this is very hard for me to write it down. or on
video. before i start let me give you some back ground. 1 i am a DJ, re
mixer, and producer. for over 18 years...

the NORAD tapes
was recorded on a Digital Audio Tape recorder. when loose change got of
hold of the NORAD tapes on mp3 which is a no no because its WAY better
if you get a copy of dat to dat not mp3 !!! because when you record 24
people at the same time its lock it will never go off (synchronisation)
every producer know this. if you play one by one using windows media
player its not cutting it. on a adat you have timings hr, min, sec,
(timing is a key thing ) what they did they moved sections, fade,cut,
paste,adding distortion,and a filter. my lawyer has 4 of the names on
who manipulated the NORAD tapes which all 4 are in deep S@@@ because 2
of them are cia the other 2 have no clue. basically Evidence
tampering.obstruction of justice also Obstruction of criminal
investigations. i have the names but i cannot tell no one i leave it as
that there so much about this case its mind blowing. i even got death
threatS as soon I GOT THE NAMES. my lawyer is trying to contact other
prosecutors around the country to round up other well know producers and
Engineers. as soon a new investigation kicks in i have to testify with
other producers and witnesses. i will explain more please chill out and
if i were you guys contact EVERYONE AS MUCH YOU CAN FROM alex jones ,
loose change cats,we are change, you name it. because after i post the
mp3 im gonna have to request that this topic must be deleted. on the 5th
of sept . forgive my writings much love NJ1

In an August 2006 Vanity Fair article based on the
recordings, Bronner therefore referred to these "NORAD tapes" as "the
authentic military history of 9/11." [3]

However, the NORAD tapes are not the only record of the actions of
NORAD and its Northeast Air Defense Sector on September 11. In her
recent book Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama that Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11,
commercial pilot and author Lynn Spencer revealed the existence of
other crucial documentation. Yet, more than seven years on from 9/11,
this record remains unreleased to the public and its contents are almost
completely unknown.

Spencer described how, at around 9:25 a.m. on September 11, Master
Sergeant Joe McCain, the mission crew commander technician at NEADS,
received a call from the Continental U.S. NORAD Region (CONR)
headquarters at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. Major General Larry
Arnold and his staff at Tyndall had been trying to gather information
about the ongoing crisis, and wanted to know the transponder codes for
the two fighter jets that had been launched in response to the first
hijacking. The CONR officer that made the call told McCain to "send [the
transponder codes] out on chat." By "chat," he meant NORAD's computer
chat system. [4]

NORAD'S COMPUTER CHAT SYSTEM

According to Spencer, the chat system used by NORAD that day was
"similar to the chat rooms on most Internet servers, but classified." It
had three chat rooms that could be used by anyone with proper access.
One room was specifically for NEADS, and connected its ID, surveillance,
and weapons technicians to its alert fighter squadrons, and was where
NEADS received status reports on fighter units and their aircraft.
Another chat room was for CONR, and was where its three sectors--NEADS,
the Western Air Defense Sector (WADS), and the Southeast Air Defense
Sector (SEADS)--communicated with each other and could "upchannel"
information to CONR headquarters. The third room was the Air Warfare
Center (AWC), where senior NORAD commanders from the three NORAD
regions--CONR, Canada, and Alaska--communicated with each other.
Although NEADS was allowed to monitor this room, it could not type into
it. [5]

Furthermore, when a training exercise was taking place, one or two
additional chat windows would be open specifically for communicating
exercise information, so as to help prevent it being confused with
real-world information. [6] This fact is of particular significance, as
the whole of NORAD, including the staff at NEADS, was involved in at
least one major training exercise the morning of 9/11. The annual
"Vigilant Guardian" exercise has been described as "an air defense
exercise simulating an attack on the United States," and was scheduled
to include a simulated hijacking that day. [7]

Paul Schreyer: Vigilant Guardian - the fake inserts on NORAD
radar screens. Are you sure, that this was "value added", as you write
about the impact of this exercise? I think this was "noise added".

Miles Kara: Vigilant Guardian had not started up that morning when
Cooper called. But NEADS was poised, the Battle Cab was operational, and
additional assets were available without the need to recall anyone.
That was a major plus as they expanded operations that morning. Plus,
Nasypany could immediately talk to Marr, in fact could turn around and
see him behind glass in the Battle Cab. When the electronic feed started
up Nasypany recognized that immediately and gave orders to suppress the
feed, orders that were carried out instantly. You can surmise all you
want that it was "noise added" but you are simply wrong, based on the
NEADS tapes, primary source information. Take the time to reread my
Nasypany series to understand how well NEADS functioned that morning,
over all.

Paul Schreyer: Just to understand you right: do you say there were no fake inserts on NORAD radar screens that morning?

Miles Kara: Just briefly at NEADS, a matter of seconds until Nasypany took action to suppress the feed.

Paul Schreyer: If it is right what you say, that the feed of fake
inserts on the radar screens was suppressed immediately, than why all
the chatter at NEADS as for example "I think this is a damn input"
(9:04), "turn your sim switches off", "let´s get rid of this damn sim"
(9:30) and so on? At what exact time was the feed suppressed?

Miles Kara: Read my article again, the one where I discuss, in detail, the times that the exercise is mentioned. (http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=4685)
It was only when I did the research for that article that I correlated
Nasypany's order with the immediate reaction by the head of the
Surveillance Section. Before that I was not aware of the sequencing of
those comments. The comment that "I think this is a damn input" is
simply a muse at the time, based on years of experience in dealing with
both exercises and real world. You need to review my work on Vigilant
Guardian to gain a sense of how NEADS balanced real world and exercise
events concurrently. They were well practiced in the art and knew
exactly what they were doing. Outsiders can never gain an appreciation
for how professional NEADS was that morning, they performed very well,
given the lead times they had, or lack thereof. The best perspective so
far is my Nasypany series.

Paul Schreyer: You mention in your article the "turn your sim
switches off" dialogue at 9:30. And you suggest that the sim feed
startet just in that minute. How do we know that it hadn´t started well
before?

Miles Kara: We know this. The exercise had not yet started, and
never started. We know that the Surveillance Technicians did not
acknowledge any exercise feed on their scopes, prior. We know that
Nasypany's reaction was instantaneous and we know from his experience
and professionalism that he would have noticed it earlier if it had
occurred. We also know that any such electronic feed had to support an
exercise inject. There was no such inject, at least as of the time that
Cooper called, since the exercise had not yet started. What we don't
know is the time that the first inject was supposed to occur. It may be
that I can sniff that out from the other channels and perhaps a written
scenario somewhere, but I don't really see the need to do that.

Many prominent 9/11 researchers claim that the US air defence system would have prevented the 9/11 attacks under normal circumstances, but were unable to do so because air traffic controllers, the FAA and NORAD were confused by "war games" that were running at the same time...

...There’s a distinct lack of evidence for any of these exercises adversely affecting the response to 9/11, or even to contradict the NORAD and 9/11 Commission view that they actually helped.

However, there is a substantial amount of evidence indicating that things were not as easily managed as Kara and 911myths let on. And there are certainly experts "well practiced in the art,"
just like those mentioned by Kara, who think things could have got very intentionally
confusing that day. In a press release posted on 911truth.org entitled, "Expert Panel Reports False Accounts of US Political and Military Leaders on 9/11," it's noted that:

The international Panel also discovered that four massive aerial practice exercises traditionally held in October were in full operation on 9/11. The largest, Global Guardian, held annually by NORAD and the US Strategic and Space Commands, had originally been scheduled for October 22-31 but was moved, along with Vigilant Guardian, to early September.

Although senior officials claimed no one could have predicted using hijacked planes as weapons, the military had been practicing similar exercises on 9/11 itself -- and for years before it.

The Panel, discovering widespread reports of confusion and delays in the defense response, looked into who was overseeing the air defenses after the second Tower was hit at 9:03 AM.

Going to the report itself, we learn that, "Although the 9/11 Commission mentioned only one military exercise – Vigilant Guardian – that was scheduled for 9/11, evidence shows that at least 12 exercises had been scheduled for that day."

The first bio listed on the 9/11 Consensus Panel is that of "Dr. Robert Bowman, former head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering at the US Air Force Institute of Technology, and the Director of Advanced Space Programs Development (“Star Wars”) under Presidents Ford and Carter."

The WhatReallyHappened.com page, "War Games: The Key to a 9/11 USAF Stand Down," notes that Dr. Bowman who is "so decorated with medals and honors they could fill a patriotic Christmas tree... has inside knowledge of military protocol, and has stated that it is apparent to him that the massive military exercises that took place on September 11, 2001 were intentionally staged to confuse civil defenses."

The panel, whose members also include a retired US Navy fighter pilot who subsequently spent 27 years as an airline pilot, as well as a U.S. Air Force pilot who served for 31 years, continues their report:

One would expect that having so many exercises would have caused some confusion, which might have slowed down the military response. Indeed, statements to this effect have been made:

According to a summary of a 9/11 Commission interview with Canadian Lt. Gen. Rick Findley, who was at NORAD as the Battle Staff Director at Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) on September 11,2001, there was, following the second attack on the Twin Towers, “confusion as to how many, and which aircraft, were hijacked. There was no situational awareness that was directly credible, and CMOC was relying on the communications over the phone lines with its operations sectors. Findley opined that AA 11 was reported still airborne and headed towards Washington, D.C. because of the added confusion of many hijack reports.” - Source

At Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, DC, FAA Air Traffic Controller James Ampey, stationed at Andrews Tower, reported in a 9/11 Commission interview that there were an unusually high number of aircraft taking-off and landing at Andrews that morning because previously scheduled military exercises were underway. The radar screens were showing “emergencies all over the place.” - Source

General Larry Arnold, commander of NORAD’s Continental U.S. Region, said: “By the end of the day, we had 21 aircraft identified as possible hijackings.” - Source

Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke: “There were lots of false signals out there. There were false hijack squawks, and a great part of the challenge was sorting through what was a legitimate threat and what wasn’t.” - Source

This study by 9/11 researcher "Shoestring" is the most important reference, it begins:

Although it has been widely reported that four commercial aircraft were hijacked over the United States on September 11, 2001, what is less well known is that while the terrorist attacks were taking place and for many hours after, numerous additional aircraft gave indications that they had been hijacked or, for other reasons, were singled out as potential emergencies. More than 20 aircraft were identified as possible hijackings, according to some accounts, and other aircraft displayed signs of emergencies, such as losing radio communication with air traffic controllers or transmitting a distress signal.

Reports about these false alarms have revealed extraordinary circumstances around some of the incidents and bizarre explanations for how they arose. For example, it has been claimed that the pilots of one foreign aircraft approaching the U.S. set their plane's transponder to transmit a code signaling they had been hijacked simply to show authorities that they were aware of what had been taking place in America that morning. Another aircraft reported as transmitting a distress signal while approaching the U.S. was subsequently found to have been canceled, and still at the airport.

There may be innocent explanations for some of the less serious false alarms, such as those simply involving the temporary loss of radio communication with the plane, which is a common occurrence and happens on a daily basis. But, viewed in its entirety, the evidence appears highly suspicious and raises serious questions. Why, for example, were there so many false alarms on September 11? Why did so many of them involve false reports of hijackings or aircraft falsely signaling that they had been hijacked? The details of specific incidents that have been reported, which I describe below, show that these false alarms must have been something more than just the results of confusion caused by the terrorist attacks.

MILITARY EXERCISES INCLUDED SIMULATED HIJACKINGS
One possibility to consider is that some of the false alarms related to training exercises taking place on September 11. There is evidence supporting this contention.

COMMANDERS THOUGHT HIJACKING WAS PART OF THE EXERCISE

OFFICER WHO HELPED DESIGN EXERCISE MISTOOK ATTACKS FOR SIMULATION

NEADS PERSONNEL JOKED ABOUT THE ATTACKS

NEADS OFFICER HAD 'NEVER SEEN SO MUCH REAL-WORLD STUFF HAPPEN DURING AN EXERCISE'

EXERCISE RESEMBLED 9/11 IN DAYS BEFORE ATTACKS

MOCK AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER IN EXERCISE USED NAME OF KEY CONTROLLER WHO RESPONDED TO 9/11 ATTACKSAnother
remarkable aspect of Vigilant Guardian is that in the days just before
September 11, the actor playing the air traffic controller who gave
NEADS information about the simulated events said their name was "Colin
Scoggins," even though it was unusual for a mock controller to give
their name during an exercise. And then, on September 11, the real Colin
Scoggins--an employee at the FAA's Boston Center--happened to be the
key person calling NEADS with information about the actual attacks, even
though it was not his usual role to perform such a duty. This curious
apparent coincidence could surely have made it more likely that NEADS
personnel would mistake the 9/11 attacks for part of the exercise.

CONTROLLER WAS 'THE ONLY ONE' GIVING NEADS INFORMATION DURING 9/11 ATTACKSWhile
an actor calling himself "Colin Scoggins" gave NEADS information about
simulated exercise events in the two days before 9/11, apparently by
coincidence, the real Colin Scoggins served as a key liaison between the
Boston Center and NEADS on September 11. Scoggins has said he made
"about 40" phone calls to NEADS that day. [37] Robert Marr said Scoggins
was in fact "about the only one that was feeding us information [during
the attacks]. I don't know exactly where he got it. But he was feeding
us information as much as he could." [38] According to Lynn Spencer,
other than the calls from Scoggins, NEADS's only source of information
on the hijacked planes was "the coverage on CNN." [39]...Therefore
the unlikely and unusual situation arose that during the exercise on
September 9 and September 10, and also during the attacks on September
11, NEADS was given key information by someone calling himself Colin
Scoggins. The question arises as to whether this created any confusion
during the 9/11 attacks, causing some NEADS personnel to think
information coming from the real Colin Scoggins was part of the
exercise. While the person answering calls from Scoggins on September 11
may have recognized that the caller had a different voice to the actor
playing Scoggins on the previous days, other NEADS personnel could have
been unaware of the different voices, and only have heard from their
colleagues that a particular piece of information came from "Colin
Scoggins."

PREVIOUS EXERCISES INCLUDED SCENARIOS SIMILAR TO 9/11 ATTACKSIt
was not just exercise events during the previous few days that may have
resulted in confusion at NEADS on September 11. What could also have
increased the likelihood that NEADS personnel would mistake the 9/11
attacks for part of the exercise is the fact that during the previous
two years, these personnel had participated in other exercises based
around scenarios closely resembling what happened on September 11.

For
example, the previous Vigilant Guardian, held in October 2000, included
a scenario in which a pilot planned to deliberately crash an aircraft
into a skyscraper in New York. The simulation involved an individual
stealing a Federal Express plane with the intention of using it for a
suicide attack on the 39-story United Nations headquarters building.
[44]

Another exercise NEADS took part in, called "Falcon Indian"
and held in June 2000, was based on the possibility of a "Communist
Party faction" hijacking an aircraft bound from the western to the
eastern United States. The fictitious hijackers intended to crash the
plane into the Statue of Liberty, located close to the Twin Towers, in
New York Harbor. [45]

Remarkably, one NORAD exercise, held at an
unspecified time in the two years prior to 9/11, was based on the
possibility of a hijacked aircraft being used as a weapon and
deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center. [46] Furthermore,
NORAD has stated that most of the four major exercises it held each year
before 9/11 "included a hijack scenario." [47] So, although most of the
personnel on the NEADS operations floor were unaware beforehand what
the exercise was going to entail on September 11, they might surely have
wondered if the plane hijackings and the attacks in New York that day
were simulated, since these events so closely resembled scenarios played
out in previous exercises.

EXERCISES INCLUDED MOCK TV NEWS REPORTSOne
might think that television coverage of the 9/11 attacks would have
convinced those at NEADS that they were dealing with actual terrorist
attacks rather than simulated ones. However, there is evidence that
casts doubt on this assertion.

It is known that simulated
television news reports had been used in training exercises before 9/11.
For example, a two-day exercise was held at Andrews Air Force Base,
Maryland, in June 2001, called "Dark Winter," based on the scenario of a
smallpox attack on the United States. This exercise, according to New York
magazine, included "simulated news clips from an imaginary cable news
network called NCN." [48] Whether NORAD exercises prior to 9/11 included
simulated television footage is unknown. But this possibility should
certainly be investigated.

The possibility should also be
investigated that NEADS personnel mistakenly thought television news
reports of the 9/11 attacks were video created to make their exercise
seem more realistic. Unlikely as it might seem, evidence shows this
scenario is plausible.

It has been reported that volunteers
taking part in another military exercise on the morning of September 11
did incorrectly think that television coverage of the attacks in New
York was video footage created for their exercise. That exercise, called
"Timely Alert II," was held at Fort Monmouth, an Army base about 50
miles south of New York City, and was based around a simulated
biochemical terrorist attack at the base. Exercise participants later
recalled that "when they first saw live footage of the events unfolding
at the World Trade Center, they thought it was some elaborate training
video to accompany the exercise." One training officer was told by a
participant, "You really outdid yourself this time." [49] If workers at
Fort Monmouth could make this error, surely those at NEADS could have
done so too.

Because of the rescheduling of military exercises normally scheduled for different times, there were an extraordinary number of exercises underway the morning of September 11, 2001.

The Department of Defense and the 9/11 Commission failed to report all but one of the exercises that occurred that morning.

They also denied that such exercises slowed down military responses to the attacks.

Had the 9/11 Commission reported the full extent of the exceptional number of exercises it knew were operating that morning, the above-quoted statements by military officers such as Eberhart, Marr, and Myers – that the exercises did not, by causing confusion, slow down the military response – would have seemed implausible.

Any new investigation should probe the fact that, taken together, this evidence suggests that:

(1) the Pentagon, after creating conditions that confused the military response to the attacks, sought to cover up its creation of these conditions, and that

(2) the 9/11 Commission facilitated this cover-up by not making public the information held in its records cited above.

NORAD commander-in-Chief Ralph Eberhart was asked by the 9/11 Commission if these war games "helped" response to the 9/11 attacks and responded nonsensically, "sir, my belief is that it helped because of the manning, because of the focus, because the crews - they have to be airborne in 15 minutes and that morning, because of the exercise, they were airborne in six or eight minutes. And so I believe that focus helped." This was clearly a ridiculous statement; if the war games "helped" response to the attacks, why were none of the planes intercepted during the attacks; what "response" was there at all? In fact, there is very strong evidence that these drills hindered response since they moved air defenses away from New York and Washington... and created general confusion.

After much research, I still find these expert opinions the most compelling.

"I knew
within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job.
Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the
busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training,
briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of
huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting
on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my
own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations,
including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state
unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial
airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on
9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our
jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our
military wanted it to happen. - Robin Hordon,
Former FAA Air Traffic Controller at the Boston Air Route Traffic
Control Center, located in Nashua, NH, 1970 - 1981. FAA certified
commercial pilot. FAA certified Flight Instructor and certified Ground
Instructor. After leaving the FAA, he had a 12-year career in the field
of comedy ending up as artistic coordinator for "Catch A Rising Star" in
Harvard Square in Cambridge, MA.